<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>The Litigator - Affleck Greene McMurtry, LLP &#187; Commercial Litigation</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.thelitigator.ca/tag/commercial-litigation/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca</link>
	<description>Competition Law and Commercial Litigation Updates</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 Feb 2012 15:37:15 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
			<item>
		<title>Competition Law Review &#8211; May 2009</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2009/05/competition-law-review-may-2009/</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2009/05/competition-law-review-may-2009/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 01 May 2009 19:05:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Michael Osborne</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Competition Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Year in Review / The Litigator (Print Edition)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[abuse of dominance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[anti-competitive conduct]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[antitrust]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[canadian competition]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[carbonless paper]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[cartel]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Competition Law Review]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Competition Tribunal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[conspiracy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[economic effect]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[irreparable harm]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[misleading advertising]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[monopolization]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[predatory pricing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[price maintenance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[supreme court of canada]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[us supreme court]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=408</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Contributors: Michael Osborne, Sonny Ingram, Sandra Monardo, Michelle Booth, Adam Wygodny, and Donna Wilson.

Top stories
Canada’s new competition law
Budget 2009 includes the most significant amendments to the Competition Act in a generation:
•	A new “per se” conspiracy offence makes it illegal for competitors or potential competitors to fix prices, allocate markets, or control production of a product, even if there is no effect on competition...and more...]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2009/05/competition-law-review-may-2009/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Bank cannot take advantage of mistake, court rules</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2008/11/bank-cannot-take-advantage/</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2008/11/bank-cannot-take-advantage/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 19 Nov 2008 02:49:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Donna N. Wilson</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Disputes over Contracts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[canada]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[contracts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[insolvent company]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[James Ellis]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[laskin]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mutual mistake]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ontario court of appeal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[rectification]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Royal Bank]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[unilateral mistake]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/index2.php/?p=36</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Ontario Court of Appeal recently clarified the difference between mutual and unilateral contractual mistake in the case of <i>Royal Bank of Canada v. El-Bris Limited</i>.   Laskin J.A., writing for the court, explained that the four prerequisites set out by the Supreme Court of Canada in <i>Performance Industries Ltd. v. Sylvan Lake Golf &#038; Tennis Club</i>  only apply to cases of unilateral, not mutual, contractual mistake.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2008/11/bank-cannot-take-advantage/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Private applicants flock to Tribunal</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2008/06/private-applicants-flock-to-tribunal/</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2008/06/private-applicants-flock-to-tribunal/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 05 Jun 2008 15:10:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Michael Osborne</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Competition Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Private Applications]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[airlines]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Competition Tribunal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Disputes within Companies and Partnerships]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[iata paper tickets]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[nadeau ferme agricole]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[private applications]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[senators hockey tickets]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.agmlawyers.com/litigatorrss.asp?file=archive/reslibrary_archives_private20080605_content</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[What do hockey, chickens, and airlines have in common? They have all been the subject of recent private applications in the Competition Tribunal. On April 11, the Tribunal refused leave to John Annable to bring a private application attacking multi-game ticket packages for Senators hockey games. Then, on May 12, it granted leave to Nadeau [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2008/06/private-applicants-flock-to-tribunal/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>OSC clarifies when merger negotiations must be disclosed</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2008/03/osc-clarifies-when-merger-negotiations-must-be-disclosed/</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2008/03/osc-clarifies-when-merger-negotiations-must-be-disclosed/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 10 Mar 2008 23:29:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Hooman Zargarzadeh</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Securities Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[3M]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ait]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Danier Leather]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[disclosure]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[merger deal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[merger negotiations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ontario securities commission]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[supreme court of canada]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=314</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Companies do not have to disclose merger negotiations as a material change until there is sufficient likelihood that the deal will close, the Ontario Securities Commission held recently in Re AiT Advanced Information Technologies Corp.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2008/03/osc-clarifies-when-merger-negotiations-must-be-disclosed/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Competition Law Year in Review 2007</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2008/02/the-litigator-2007/</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2008/02/the-litigator-2007/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 01 Feb 2008 22:05:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Michael Osborne</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Competition Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Year in Review / The Litigator (Print Edition)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Companies Creditors Arrangement Act]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Competition Act]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Competition Tribunal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[construction bonds]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[construction project]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[criminal proceedings]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[deceit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[discriminatory pricing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Disputes over Contracts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Disputes within Companies and Partnerships]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[economic relations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Frauds]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[inducing breach of contract]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Investment Dealers Association]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[misrepresentation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ontario court of appeal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ontario securities commission]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[price maintenance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Securities Litigation]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=305</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Contributors: Michael Osborne , Jennifer Cantwell, Sandra Monardo, Michelle Booth, Sonny Ingram, Hooman Zardarzadeh

TOP STORIES
Ice storm
Ice supplier Arctic Glacier Inc. tried to crush its fledgling competitor, Polar Ice Express Inc. by unlawfully interfering with its economic relations, an Alberta court found...]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2008/02/the-litigator-2007/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Commercial Litigation Update &#8211; November 2007</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2007/11/commercial-litigation-update-november-2007/</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2007/11/commercial-litigation-update-november-2007/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 01 Nov 2007 03:49:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Kenneth Dekker</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Year in Review / The Litigator (Print Edition)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[court of appeal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Danier Leather]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[shareholder class action]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=392</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[CONTRIBUTORS: KEN DEKKER, MICHAEL OSBORNE, MICHAEL BINETTI,ADAM WYGODNY,AND HOOMAN ZARGARZADEH CANADA&#8217;S TOP COURT DISMISSES SHAREHOLDER CLASS ACTION AGAINST DANIER LEATHER In October, Canada&#8217;s Supreme Court upheld the Ontario Court of Appeal&#8217;s decision overturning Canada&#8217;s first-ever securities class action judgment in favour of investors relating to alleged misrepresentations on an initial public offering. &#8230; and more. [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2007/11/commercial-litigation-update-november-2007/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Performance, and Labour and Materials Payment Bonds &#8211; Avoiding the Pitfalls of the Surety&#8217;s Defences to a Bond Claim</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2007/06/performance-and-labour-and-materials-payment-bonds-avoiding-the-pitfalls-of-the-suretys-defences-to-a-bond-claim/</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2007/06/performance-and-labour-and-materials-payment-bonds-avoiding-the-pitfalls-of-the-suretys-defences-to-a-bond-claim/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 28 Jun 2007 15:50:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Peter Greene</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Construction (including Performance and L&M Bond Defense)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[bond]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[bond claim]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[contract]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[failure to notify]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[labour]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[labour and material payment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[payment bonds]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[performance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Surety Defences]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=112</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The comfort provided by a surety bond can be lost easily if one does not cross one’s T’s and dot one’s I’s. However, by being aware of the defences most often raised by sureties you can chart a course that reduces the likelihood that the surety bond ends up as nothing more than a souvenir of a construction project gone wrong.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2007/06/performance-and-labour-and-materials-payment-bonds-avoiding-the-pitfalls-of-the-suretys-defences-to-a-bond-claim/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Cable company liable for inducing breach of contract</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2007/05/cable-company-liable-for-inducing-breach-of-contract/</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2007/05/cable-company-liable-for-inducing-breach-of-contract/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 14 May 2007 20:11:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Kenneth Dekker</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Employment Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[at large]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[competition]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[conspiracy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[contract]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[damages]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[departing employees]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[economic torts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[employment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[inducing breach of contract]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[interference]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=177</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Ontario’s Court of Appeal upheld the trial decision in Drouillard v. Cogeco Cable Canada Inc. that held large cable operator Cogeco Cable liable for telling a cable subcontractor, Mastec Canada, that it would not allow its employee, Mr. Drouillard, to work on Cogeco equipment.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2007/05/cable-company-liable-for-inducing-breach-of-contract/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Ex-employees enjoined from accepting business from former employer&#8217;s customers</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2007/05/ex-employees-enjoined-from-accepting-business-from-former-employers-customers/</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2007/05/ex-employees-enjoined-from-accepting-business-from-former-employers-customers/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 09 May 2007 01:41:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Adam Wygodny</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Employment Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[interlocutory injunction]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[tank liners]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Western Tank]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=362</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Western Tank &#038; Lining Ltd. recently obtained an extraordinarily broad interlocutory injunction restraining a group of former employees not only from soliciting Western Tank's clients but even from accepting business from customers that Western Tank did business with over the previous 5 years.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2007/05/ex-employees-enjoined-from-accepting-business-from-former-employers-customers/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Commercial Litigation Update &#8211; November 2006</title>
		<link>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2006/11/commercial-litigation-update-november-2006/</link>
		<comments>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2006/11/commercial-litigation-update-november-2006/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 01 Nov 2006 03:45:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Meredith Hayward</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Commercial Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Year in Review / The Litigator (Print Edition)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[commercial]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[litigation privilege]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[solicitor-client privilege]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[supreme court of canada]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thelitigator.ca/?p=390</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[CONTRIBUTORS: MEREDITH HAYWARD, KENNETH DEKKER, PAUL EMERSON, KYLE PETERSON,AND ADAM WYGODNY SUPREME COURT OF CANADA CONFIRMS LITIGATION PRIVILEGE OF LIMITED DURATION In its first review of the lifespan of litigation privilege, the Supreme Court of Canada has recently ruled that, unlike solicitor-client privilege, it &#8220;expires with the litigation of which it was born.&#8221; &#8230; and [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.thelitigator.ca/2006/11/commercial-litigation-update-november-2006/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

